Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States

This chapter summaries the procedures governing asset forfeiture in the United States. It begins with a discussion of the purposes that asset recovery is intended to serve as part of the prosecutor’s arsenal of weapons in the enforcement of the criminal laws. Next, it discusses the categories of property that are subject to forfeiture—that is, the proceeds of the crime, facilitating property and so forth. Third, it compares the alternative ways in which property may be recovered in conviction-based and non-conviction-based proceedings. And finally, it discusses in some detail the procedures that apply in a criminal case when the prosecutor seeks to recover criminally tainted assets as part of the defendant’s sentence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

eBook EUR 287.83 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 369.24 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 369.24 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Searching Assets and Pressuring the Debtor for an Effective Enforcement: An Overview of the Brazilian Execution Proceedings

Improving asset confiscation: in the quest for effective and just solutions

Article Open access 02 September 2024

The confiscation and recovery of criminal property: a European Union state of the art

Article 06 September 2016

Notes

For a more complete discussion of these issues, see Stefan D Cassella, Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States (2nd edn, Juris 2013) and 2016 Supplement.

Kaley v United States 134 S Ct 1090 (2014). See United States v Martin 662 F 3d 301, 309 (4th Cir 2011).

Mark Osler, “Asset Forfeiture in a New Market-Reality Narcotics Policy” (2015) 52(1) Harvard Journal on Legislation 221.

For a social network approach to examining terrorism finances, see Chap. 39 (Leuprecht and Walther) in this collection.

See Courtney J Linn, “What Asset Forfeiture Teaches Us About Providing Restitution in Fraud Cases” (2007) 10(3) Journal of Money Laundering Control 215.

United States v Blackman 746 F 3d 137, 143 (4th Cir 2014).

See Ernesto Savona, Michele Riccardi, and Giulia Berlusconi (eds), Organised Crime in European Businesses (Routledge 2016).

For further consideration of social re-use, see Chap. 29 (Vettori) in this collection. 18 USC ss 981(a)(1)(A) and 982(a)(1). Ibid. s 1963. Ibid. s 981(a)(1)(G).

See, for instance, 7 USC s 2024(f) (forfeiture of property used to commit food stamp fraud); 18 USC s 1028(b)(5) (forfeiture of personal property used to commit identity theft); 18 USC s 1029(c)(1)(C) (forfeiture of personal property used to commit access device fraud); 18 USC s 1030(i) (forfeiture of proceeds of computer fraud, and personal property used to commit computer fraud); 18 USC s 1037 (forfeiture of proceeds of email fraud, or ‘equipment, software or other technology’ used to commit the offence).

See, for instance, 18 USC s 982(a)(2)(A) (forfeiture of proceeds of fraud affecting a financial institution); 18 USC s 982(a)(7) (forfeiture of gross proceeds of health care fraud); 18 USC s 982(a)(8) (forfeiture of proceeds and property used to commit telemarketing fraud).

See 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C) incorporating the list of offences that appears in the money laundering statute; 18 USC s 1956(c)(7); the RICO statute; 18 USC s 1961(1); and the terrorism statute 18 USC s 2332b(g)(5)(B).

Section 981(a)(1)(C) is a civil forfeiture statute but it authorizes criminal forfeiture as well through 28 USC s 2461(c). Cases explaining this include United States v Razmilovic 419 F 3d 134, 136 (2nd Cir 2005); United States v Black 526 F Supp 2d 870, 878 (ND Ill 2007); United States v Evanson 2008 WL 3107332, *1 (D Utah 2008); United States v Rudaj 2006 WL 1876664, *3–4 (SDNY 2006).

See United States v Taylor 582 F 3d 558, 565 (5th Cir 2009) (explaining how s 981(a)(1)(C) incorporates the money laundering predicates from ss 1956(c)(7) and 1961(1)); United States v St Pierre 809 F Supp 2d 538, 542 n 2 (ED La 2011) (explaining how s 981(a)(1)(C) authorizes forfeiture for violations of ss 666 and 1343).

For a full discussion of the forfeiture of criminal proceeds, see Cassella (n 1), Chap. 25.

See United States v Clark 2016 WL 361560, *4 (SD Fla 2016); United States v Galemmo 2015 WL 4450669 (SD Ohio 2015); United States v Lustyik 2015 WL 1467260 (D Utah 2015); United States v Cekosky 171 Fed Appx 785, 2006 WL 707129 (11th Cir 2006).

See United States v Warshak 631 F 3d 266, 329–330 (6th Cir 2010); United States v Smith 749 F 3d 465, 488–489 (6th Cir 2014); United States v Daugerdas 2012 WL 5835203, *3 (SDNY 2012).

See United States v Esquenazi 752 F 3d 912, 931 (11th Cir 2014).

See United States v Torres 703 F 3d 194, 204 (2nd Cir 2012). See also United States v Wong 2014 WL 6976080, *2 (CD Cal 2014); United States v Tyson Foods, Inc, 2003 WL 8118660 (ED Tenn 2003).

See United States v Peters, 732 F 3d 93, 102 (2nd Cir 2013); United States v George, 2010 WL 1740814, *1 (ED Va 2010).

See United States v Swanson 394 F 3d 520, 529 n 4 (7th Cir 2005); United States v Schlesinger 396 F Supp 2d 267, 273 (EDNY 2005); United States v Miller 2009 WL 2949784, *7 (D Kan 2009).

See United States v Hill 46 Fed Appx 838, 839 (6th Cir 2002); United States v Kalish 2009 WL 130215, at *5–6 (SDNY 2009); United States v Vogel 2010 WL 547344, *4 (ED Tex 2010).

United States v Betancourt 422 F 3d 240 (5th Cir 2005).

See United States v Venturella 585 F 3d 1013, 1015, 1016–1017 (7th Cir 2009); United States v Hailey 887 F Supp 2d 649 (D Md 2012); United States v Newman 659 F 3d 1235, 1244 (9th Cir 2011).

See United States v Sigillito 899 F Supp 2d 850, 864–865 (ED Mo 2012). See United States v Contorinis, 692 F 3d 136, 145 n 3 (2nd Cir 2012). See United States v Martin 2014 WL 221956, *5 (D Idaho 2014). For a full discussion of the forfeiture of facilitating property, see Cassella (n 1), Chap. 26.

United States v Rivera 884 F 2d 544, 546 (11th Cir 1989). See United States v Schifferli 895 F 2d 987, 990–991 (4th Cir 1990); United States v Huber 404 F 3d 1047 (8th Cir 2005); United States v Puche 350 F 3d 1137 (11th Cir 2003); United States v Thornton 2012 WL 2866467, *2 (SD Miss 2012).

18 USC s 983(c)(3).

United States v Bajakajian 524 US 321, 323 (1998); 18 USC s 983(g) (codifying the Bajakajian decision for civil forfeiture cases). For a full discussion of the proportionality issue under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment see Cassella (n 1), Chap. 28.

See Huber (n 32) 1056 and 1058; United States v Coffman 2014 WL 354632, *3 (ED Ky 2014); United States v Tencer 107 F 3d 1120, 1135 (5th Cir 1997).

See United States v Stanford 2014 WL 7013987, *4–6 (WD La 2014). For a full discussion of forfeiture under the money laundering statutes, see Cassella (n 1), Chap. 27.

18 USC s 983(a)(1) and (2).

For a summary of administrative forfeiture procedure, see Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Ltd v Tandy 552 F3d 885, 887 (DC Cir 2009); Ramos v United States 2015 WL 1433549 (DVI 2015); Pert v United States 2011 WL 1792767, *5 (D Nev 2011); VanHorn v Florida 677 F Supp 2d 1288, 1293 (MD Fla 2009); United States v $200,255 in US Currency 2006 WL 1687774, *2–4 (MD Ga 2006); Rodriguez v United States 2006 WL 889557, *2 (DNH 2006); Bermudez v City of New York Police Department 2008 WL 3397919, *3 (SDNY 2008).

19 USC s 1607.

See Malladi (n 38); United States v Ninety-Three (93) Firearms 330 F 3d 414, 422 (6th Cir 2003); United States v Miscellaneous Firearms 376 F 3d 709, 713 (7th Cir 2004); In re: Application for Warrant to Seize One 1988 Chevrolet Monte Carlo 861 F 2d 307, 310 (1st Cir 1988).

18 USC s 981(g)(2). 18 USC s 983(a)(3). 381 F Supp 2d 57 (DPR 2005). 871 F Supp 2d 128 (EDNY 2012). 2014 WL 936293 (CD Cal 2014). See Cassella (n 1), Chap. 2 for a history of the development of forfeiture law in the United States. United States v Ursery 518 US 267, 295–296 (1996) (J Kennedy concurring).

See United States v One Assortment of 89 Firearms 465 US 354, 361–362 (1984); One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v United States 409 US 232, 234–235 (1972); Paret-Ruiz v United States 827 F 3d 167 (1st Cir 2016); United States v $6,190.00 in U.S. Currency 581 F 3d 881, 885 (9th Cir 2009).

See Bennis v Michigan 516 US 442, 446 (1996). 18 USC s 983(d).

See United States v $506,069.09 Seized from First Merit Bank 2014 WL 7185585, *7 (ND Ohio 2014); United States v Real Property Known As 7208 East 65th Pl 185 F. Supp.3d 1288 (ND Okla 2016); United States v One Gray 2007 Dodge RAM Truck 2015 WL 8362399 (SD Ind 2015).

See United States v One Gulfstream G-V Jet Aircraft 941 F Supp 2d 1, 10 (DDC 2013). See United States v $7,679.00 U.S. Currency 2015 WL 7571910 (WDNY 2015). United States v 6 Firearms, Accessories and Ammunition 2015 WL 4660126 (WD Wash 2015).

For a detailed discussion of civil forfeiture procedure, see Cassella (n 1); Chaps. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. See also United States v $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency 672 F 3d 629, 634–635 (9th Cir 2012) (setting out the procedures for commencing a civil forfeiture action under s 983 and Rule G).

18 USC s 983(g).

See United States v Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane 545 F 3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir 2008); In re Matthews, 395 F 3d 477, 481 (4th Cir 2005).

See Libretti v United States 516 US 29, 39 (1995) (by Rule 32(2)(b)(3) (the order of forfeiture ‘shall be made part of the sentence and included in the judgment’)); United States v Christensen 828 F 3d 763 (9th Cir 2015); United States v Smith 770 F 3d 628, 637 (7th Cir 2014).

See United States v Harris 666 F 3d 905, 910 (5th Cir 2012). See United States v Capoccia 503 F 3d 103, 110, 114 (2nd Cir 2007). See Venturella (n 27) 1016–1017.

See United States v Vampire Nation 451 F 3d 189, 202 (3rd Cir 2006); United States v Lazarenko 476 F 3d 642, 647 (9th Cir 2007); United States v Roberts 696 F Supp 2d 263, 270 (EDNY 2010).

See FR Crim P 32.2(b)(2). De Almeida v United States 459 F 3d 377, 381 (2nd Cir 2006); United States v Watts 477 Fed Appx 816, 817–818 (2nd Cir 2012); United States v Dupree 919 F Supp 2d 254, 274–275 (EDNY 2013); United States v Molina-Sanchez 298 FRD 311, 312–313 (WDNC 2014).

Rule 32.2(c); 21 USC s 853(n). The post—trial ancillary proceeding is explained in detail in Cassella (n 1), Chap. 23.

For a complete discussion of criminal forfeiture procedure, see Cassella (n 1); Chaps. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Rule 32.2(a). See United States v Hampton 732 F 3d 687, 690 (6th Cir 2013); United States v Lazarenko 504 F Supp 2d 791, 796–797 (ND Cal 2007); United States v Galestro 2008 WL 2783360, at *10–11 (EDNY 2008); United States v Woods 730 F Supp 2d 1354, 1372–1373 (SD Ga 2010); United States v Clemens 2011 WL 1540150, *4 (D Mass 2011).

21 USC ss 853(e) and (f).

See Kaley (n 2); United States v Cosme 796 F 3d 226 (2nd Cir 2015); United States v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development 493 F 3d 469, 475 (5th Cir 2007).

See United States v Beltramea 785 F 3d 287 (8th Cir 2015). Rule 32.2(b). See United States v Marquez 685 F 3d 501, 510 (5th Cir 2012). See United States v Yeje-Cabrera 430 F 3d 1 (1st Cir 2005).

See Vampire Nation (n 62); Hampton (n 66) 691–692; United States v Viloski 814 F 3d 104, 110 n 11 (2nd Cir 2016); Blackman (n 7).

21 USC s 853(p); Rule 32.2(e).

See United States v Fleet 498 F 3d 1225, 1231 (11th Cir 2007); United States v Carroll 346 F 3d 744, 749 (7th Cir 2003); United States v Alamoudi 452 F 3d 310, 314 (4th Cir 2006).

See Libretti (n 58) 49; United States v Valdez 726 F 3d 684, 699 (5th Cir 2013). Rule 32.2(b)(5).

See United States v Armstrong 2007 WL 809508, *2 (ED La 2007); United States v Phillips 704 F 3d 754, 771 (9th Cir 2012).

Rule 32.2(b)(4). See United States v Smith 656 F 3d 821, 828 (8th Cir 2011); United States v Holder 2010 WL 478369, *3 (MD Tenn 2010).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC, Laurel, MD, USA Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D. Cassella